CPU speed really mean better quality

[centripetal]

Hi.
Sorry if this has been asked before. I'm not new to dv or divx but my old 1 gig is aging. My question is:
Does a faster machine necessarily mean image quality?

I know it takes fast machines for the post processing effects, but I'm wondering if higher image quality really is possible with a fast system.

Thanks

[Enchanter]

"Does a faster machine necessarily mean image quality?"

Aside from enabling you to run post-processing filters at full speed, a faster machine won't translate into better quality.

Cheers.

[decryptit]

Not at all.Less time but not more quality.

[zx50]

Quality comes from the codec , AND depends on what features you have enabled on the codec, i.e quarter pixel, b-frames.

[divxdude]

Good Quality Codec, DivX or Xvid.

Birate, Deinterlacing and noise filters are the keys to prestine quality.

well at least for me they are.

[decryptit]

Does divX pro has more quality that the standard one.

[Quality's Proof]

"Better image results with faster processor?" No.

There is no un-aided eye discernible difference in image quality comparing results from a 1.0 Gig rig and a 1.7 Gig rig, and then comparing the results of a 1.7 Gig with a 2.53 Gig..

Your question was about image quality (getting the best back-ups). Since you say you are not new to Back-ups, have you tried Dvddecrypter (w/aspi installed) as the burning engine? I've noticed v. 3.1.7 's burning quality better than Cyberlink, Nero and ~ or = Gearworks engine. I've examined @ 4X (magnification of same movie, same scene, same burn speed, same media, same t.v. w/ same settings.

Not trying to start a brush-fire with Nero-addicts (I have Nero, also).

[megamachine]

I concur with the above. The benefit is in speed and functionality, not in quality. When I upgraded RAM from 256 to 512, there was a big difference in how programs like Video Studio worked, in terms of time, but in the end the quality of video was the same.

[zx50]

Well yeah exactly, you are not going to get better quality no matter how powerful your pc is, all it will mean is your pc being able to handle it faster that's all. Like i said all the quality will come from the codec depending on what features you have enabled.

[FireNtheHole]

I recently used Divx 5.1 to encode a 98 minute movie. I started with a few one minute clip tests. Did 4 tests, each with a bitrate of 600. Once at fastest mode, once standard, once slow, and once on slowest. Believe me it did get slow, but the picture came out better. At sloest mode it encodes 4 to 6 frames per second. Thats almost working backwards. It took me 19 hours to encode that 98 minute movie at slowest mode, but I think it was worth it. The file came out to be 530 megs, at 650 kbit\sec, after I added the audio.

[zx50]

@megamachine, i have 768mb ram, and in gordian knot i can reach speeds of 28-30fps. I don't really think 512 is that much when it comes to video encoding, but if your happy with it then fine. Just thought i'd say that's all.

[FireNtheHole]

Does anyone know about the psychovisual enhancements? I was wondering, if I switched it from fast to slow what difference it would make.

[zx50]

All i know is that having the pyschovisual enhancement enabled on the first pass as well as the second will multiply when your encoding, so what areas got compressed last time will double that in the second pass. As for the difference between slow and fast i read that if you have it on slow then there's less chance of any artifacts appearing in your video. I have'nt tried fast though, what's it like good or?

[Live_Life]

Processor speeds doesn't affect quality that much

[zx50]

Er, i think he meant the feature in the DivX 5.1.1 codec, not the processor speed. And secondly processor speed has no impact on quality whatsoever, just speeds up the encoding process.

P.S just like when you see when you bring up the codec configuration, performance/quality, the pychovisual enhancement ask you the same thing whether you want pyscho to encode it fast or slow.